*1 Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

Nicholas Votaw appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Votaw contends that the district court should have granted his motion in *2 light of his young age at the time of his offense, remarkable success on pretrial release, minimal and nonviolent criminal history, and stable release plan. The district court did no t abuse its discretion by denying Votaw’s motion. See United States v. Aruda , 993 F.3d 797, 799 (9th Cir. 2021). The district court assumed without deciding that Votaw demonstrated compelling and extraordinary reasons under § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), but nevertheless concluded that the factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) did not support a sentence reduction. The district court’s conclusions that the § 3553(a) factors did not support a substantial reduction in the 24-month sentence and that Votaw’s medical nee ds were being adequately managed were not illogical, implausible, or without support in the record. See United States v. Robertson , 895 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2018).

AFFIRMED .

2 20-10431

[*] This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

[**] The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).